11 November 2010 - Tower Hamlets Labour Party Executive Committee meets (London Regional Director Ken Clark has written to local chair Graham Taylor banning all party meetings until after the S&B by-election on 16 December)

19 November 2010 - deadline for nomination of candidates for the Spitalfields and Banglatown ward by-election

It is highly likely I have missed out some important steps in this process. But the questions that arise are:

1) who authorised the procedure adopted?

2) why were ward members excluded from the selection process at the outset?

3) is it humanly possible to amend for the errors and enable all members in Spitalfields and Banglatown Ward to decide for themselves who should be the Labour Party candidate in the by-election?

On the final point, I would just add that I am about to circulate a communication to all members in the City of London (Branch) Labour Party. I know all 80 plus members will have been sent the communique before the close of business today, with the exception of three who will (subject to the readiness of CWU members to deliver first class post next day) get the mailout tomorrow.

Why can't the members of neighbouring Spitalfields and Banglatown Branch Labour Party enjoy the same service?

November 01, 2010

A whiff of further scandal has been scented from east of Aldgate. I have just been sent an exchange of emails possibly providing prima facie evidence of a further contravention of Labour Party rules by a clique that helped deny Lutfur Abbas of the Labour nomination to run for the post of elected mayor of Tower Hamlets.

The author operating under the psuedonym BhaiComrade is not known to my source. But s/he knew my source's Labour Party membership number.

Replying to a round robin my source was told emphatically by BhaiComrade:

..........member xxxxxxxxxx is not on is not on approved list.

I'm confident Luke Akehurst as a newly elected member of Labour's National Executive Committee will be first to demand an investigation into this possible group within a group contrary to Rule.

October 27, 2010

For a party that abolished fox-hunting, the blood lust inside the Labour Party seems to know no bounds. My scoop on the Tower Hamlets Labour Group meeting earlier this week in the House of Commons has flushed out some of the 'hunt' both here and on Twitter. The twisted thinking that they give vent to highlights a profound problem for all political parties in democratic societies. How do they cope with members who have minds of their own?

For right-wing Labourite commentatators such as Paul Richards and Luke Akehurst, the decision of Lutfur Rahman to run as an independent candidate for the elected mayoral post in Tower Hamlets meant not just automatic expulsion, but a denial of 'natural justice'. Labourpaul aka Paul Richards twittered:

@PeterKenyon basic democratic principle: if you join Labour, you can't back other candidates. Unity is strength, etc.

In a rapid fire exchange that followed Luke Akehurst delivered a triumphant blast on his hunting horn:

@PeterKenyon You could have made the natural justice argument if he hadn't run vs Lab. By doing so Lutfur destroyed own case.

So there you have it from Labour First recruiting sergeant and member of the Hunt extraordinaire, we will hunt you down whatever.

Luke had set out his reaction to the news of Labour's defeat last Thursday here, the following day. As a former NEC member, I urged caution:

Dear Luke

As a member of the NEC that read the complaints lodged at short notice and some 72 hours before the close of nominations for candidates to run as for the position of elected mayor of TH, I urge you to focus on the allegations.

Either uphold them or dismiss them observing due process and the entitlement of all parties to natural justice.

I hope you have better luck than the previous NEC did over the Erith and Thamesmead ballot box break-in and voting paper tampering.

This goes to the nub of a problem facing Labour's new Leader: how can you aspire to mass-membership when at the first whiff of independent thinking there are other members baying to hunt down and expel them? For me the answer is simple. Labour has to have robust processes in place to protect all members' rights. The Lutfur Rahman case presents a real opportunity to examine member baiting, hunting and 'slaughter'.

I'm glad to see I am not alone in pressing for the inquiry proposed and voted for at the NEC on 21 September to be completed.

Trial by Jeory's recent post suggests:

Which way new party leader Ed Miliband nods his brainy head will be crucial. The feeling among senior Labour figures is that he will lay off Ken, but I suspect he will also order an investigation into the so-called “Abbas dossier”, which in fact was authored not only by Helal Abbas, but also a number of others involved in the shambolic Labour selection campaign.

If that investigation finds the dossier was as weak as some suspect and, depending on how Lutfur acts and performs as an independent Mayor, it is not inconceivable that he and others two years or so down the line could be readmitted into the fold.

Given the baying from the hounds in Westminster as reported earlier today by Paul Waugh of the Evening Standard, Ed Miliband's obvious course of action is to insist the allegations against Lutfur Rahman are properly investigated and as a matter of urgency.

Those in the Parliamentary Labour Party scenting blood are right in one respect. Silence is not an option for our new Leader. Tally ho!

October 24, 2010

Labour lost the Tower Hamlet's elected Mayoral election on Thursday. So what's the machine's next move? Organise to undermine the democratically-elected mayor's efforts to form an administration.

According to respected local resident and journalist Ted Jeory's blog:

Labour’s London boss Ken Clark is understood to have decreed to his councillors that they can not remain in the party and serve with Lutfur. So anyone wanting to take Lutfur’s shilling will have to defect.

Note the possessive adjective 'his' councillors. What is going on? The London Labour Party's regional director is not in charge of a Politburo. He acts under authority from the National Executive Committee. We can be certain that there has been NO meeting of the NEC since the TH mayoral election.

What we do know is that some questionable allegations were made at an NEC meeting on 21 September against the winner of an all member ballot for the Labour Party nomination to stand for the post of elected mayor of TH. Questionable allegations? Well, yes. The accused was not given any chance to respond, so the allegations remain open to question.

My former Hackney Labour Party colleague, Luke Akehurst, a well known member of Labour First - the party within the Labour Party that continues to operate with impunity possibly contrary to Rule, opines that there are parallels to be drawn with Hackney in the mid-1990s. As the chief whip of Hackney Labour Group appointed in 1995 by the then London Obergruppenführer Terry Ashton, on the authority of Tom Sawyer, general secretary at the time, I am no stranger to the dark arts of Labour Party politics. Likening Tower Hamlets Labour Parties today to Hackney Labour Parties then is, Luke, both ill-informed and ill-advised.

There is a simple and straightforward opportunity for the Labour Party to make amends for years of unwarranted and gross interference in the rights of members in that borough. It commits to co-operating with the newly elected Mayor whilst maintaining its Manifesto commitments to the electorate in the May council elections.

Instead we have the unedifying prospect of an abuse of parliamentary facilities by the two Labour MPs hosting a Labour Group meeting in the Palace of Westminster allegedly to subvert the democratic will of the local electorate. Abuse? To book a room in Houses of Parliament requires the sponsorship of an MP. What's wrong with the usual facilities in TH?

I only hope the wires are buzzing tonight to stop the folly and enable an urgently needed rapproachment to take place between the victor and the Labour Party. I have never met Lutfur Rahman. But I know him as the only Labour Council leader who, when in office, secured support from his Council for a full set of recommendations concerning the implementation of a London Living Wage. As for all the allegations about Islamisation, I see that balanced and objective commentator Melanie Phillips has picked up the baton (again). Enough said.

An urgent review of the allegations leading to Lutfur Rahman's administrative suspension by Labour's NEC is needed as I have already suggested in unsolicited advice to Luke Akehurst on his blog. On the basis of what I know now, compared to a month ago - I would be inclined to say, "Case dismissed". Lutfur Rahman should probably have been the official Labour Party candidate in the first place. At least that's what TH Labour Party members decided in a ballot administered by current Obergruppenführer Ken Clark. That's good enough for me. It's their right to decide under Labour Party Rules.

As for the local MPs, they are making a very good case for the urgent reintroduction of compulsory reselection of Labour sitting MPs as prospective parliamentary candidates.

September 24, 2010

A HH:MM:SS countdown to the Labour Party Leadership announcement adorns its website. A gradual swell of pleas for unity can be anticipated ahead and after the declaration. The political fight has to be taken to the Tories. Who could disagree? Livelihoods of millions of people whether in or out of work for whatever reason are under threat from the ConDem's mismanagement of the budget deficit.

All the more reason to expose and seek to heal a long-standing rift over how the Labour Party itself is run. Rift? What rift? It's between the democratic centralisers and the democratic socialists. There was a time, it is said, when Party staff served all sections of the Party. No longer. Throughout Tony Blair's period in office as Leader, Party staff were deployed to serve the Leader; and with increasing ruthlessness. Remember the fiascos over the leadership of the Welsh Assembly, and who should run in 2000 as Labour's candidate for London Mayor?

The lingering stench of democratic centralism continues to pollute the Party as was all too evident at this week's pre-Conference National Executive Committee. A prolonged campaign of interference in the rights of Labour Party members in Tower Hamlets to select their own candidates for public office reached fever pitch with a mini-hysteria led by Acting Leader, Harriet Harman, her husband, Jack Dromey, aided and abetted by NEC chair Ann Black (seeking re-election on the self-styled Grassroots Labour slate) and the General Secretary Ray Collins. Swift action by the new leader to replace Collins and other HO staff has been called for on Left Futures. That's easier said than done. There is a deeply engrained democratic centralist culture espoused not just by Labour Party grandees and HO staff, but supporters at every level of the Party. John Harris in the Guardian on Wednesday caught a facet of this culture in his Comment piece Labour's right will roar back. He asked:

What has happened to the party's right? Most of its remaining number are
clustered around MiliD, and aside from the odd pop at "Red" MiliE,
keeping shtoom. But do not be fooled: they are as fired up as ever, and
preparing for a return once the membership gets back to leaflets and
balloons.

Note Harris's appreciation of members as sentient beings. The centre-left has no coherent vision or message for members disenfranchised in constituency parties frozen in time by the National Executive Committee awaiting the outcome of a ConDem government boundary review, which will take years. The machine's dogged resistence to parliamentary prospective candidate reselection needs to be recognised for what it is - a sitting MP's insurance scheme. I'm a Chartist. I support annual parliamentary elections as the most effective means of holding our elected representatives to account. But given recent experience the least Labour could do is reintroduce compulsory reselection. Where there is no Labour MP, CLPs should be encouraged to come up with not just consituency, but branch development plans. These should link fundraising, local/national campaigning and political education to fight every parish, town, district, local and regional government seat. Alliances can be forged with community groups. It is a mammoth task. The new Leader should seek a rapid start on this work.

In doing so s/he will have to be mindful of what the NEC is actually proposing at Conference in Manchester. To encourage local initiative (not), it is proposing a rule change to oblige all party units to transfer any property it holds in trust or owns into the name of the Labour Party. It is sequestration in defiance of the wishes of countless benefactors dead or alive. Why? To bolster the national Labour Party's balance sheet increasing its assets at no financial cost. I doubt my ability to organise a sufficiently vocal protest to get the proposed Rule change withdrawn. But if the new Leader wants to send a clear message to members s/he could useful insist at the NEC meeting on Sunday that sequestration is deferred pending an open and transparent consultation.

As I said at the NEC on Tuesday soundings undertaken by the outgoing Treasurer Jack Dromey were utterly cynical. They took place over the summer holiday period between the second half of July and 17 September. Worse, sound reasons for having a coherent property policy are being used to cover up the scandalous breakdown in financial governance arrangements of the Labour Party without the lessons being fully aired, understood and addressed. In the absence of proper budgets and management accounts, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that I should not trust HO with my membership subscription, let alone a bequest .

In the quest for change in the Party, relations between Leader and individual member and political levy payer/affiliate awakened by the 4-1/2 month long campaign have to be built on further. Reform of policy-making and encouragement of debate taking on the Tories should not be confined to Westminster but extended to everywhere people live and work. Here there is an opportunity to rebalance the Party's federal structure. New Labour squeezed the affiliated trades unions' representation on the National Policy Forum - to around 1/6th. But it left the TUs holding a disproportionate number of NEC seats - 13/33 who continue to fulfil a praetorian guard function for the Leadership. That compares with just 6/33 for constituency reps. TU representatives also hold the whiphand on the NEC organisation committee. Those whom I have encountered in my two year term on the NEC are temperamentally unsuited to managing discipline in a voluntary organisation. Put simply they have forgotten the need for carrots. Sadly, they have abandoned any regard for natural justice as evidenced in former MP Ian Gibson's deselection last year, and latterly over Tower Hamlets. There should be equal representation of affiliates and CLP representatives on the Organisation Committee, and in the coming year it should be chaired by a CLP representative.

A really bold Leader would tackle the representation of women in the Party's structures head on. An opportunity to set a 50% minimum for elected places in the Shadow Cabinet was lost on Tuesday thanks to the sisterhood. Acting Leader Harriet Harman failed to secure the votes in the PLP ballot. The NEC failed to hold the PLP to account. When I questioned the status of the PLP inside the Party, i was told by self-professed equalities champion and General Secretary Ray Collins that standing orders were outside the scope of the Rule. Not true, every CLP and local government groups SOs have to be approved by the NEC. When I protested NEC vice-chair Norma Stephenson moved next business, which was promptly adopted by NEC chair Ann Black. There are sound reasons for the PLP to be brought explicitly within the scope of the Labour Party's Rule Book when it comes to Party policy and financial governance arrangements. A thoughtful Leader on Sunday morning would ask for a rethink and suggest that the PLP SO changes should be put to Conference with an NEC recommendation for immediate adoption of a minimum of 50% elected places for women. Then a political education programme is needed to both encourage women to stand as Labour candidates, and branches and constituency parties to choose them.

Finally, there is the question of accountability of the Leadership. The Party hierarchy has already fixed an indefinite term of office, contrary to Rule, for Deputy Leader Harriet Harman. Nomination papers for Leader and Deputy Leader should be issued each year. The democratic centralists have ignored this since 1997. If the new Leader wants to reconnect with members s/he should insist that nomination papers are sent out. it gives every member the chance to say: "You are doing a great job, I will renominate you" or "Hang on, you are not, I will nominate another member of the PLP". The democratic centrist fear chaos, and bizarrely are proposing a Rule change in Manchester. That has been described by Left Futures as a "wreckers' charter". If that is intended to stir up effective opposition, it is to be applauded. But not at the expense of securing a commitment from our new Leader to be accountable regularly to the membership as well as the electorate.

After seven years of campaigning for membership and our critical importance getting Labour's messages across on the doorstep, I hope our new Leader will not just put the Blair/Brown years behind, but the democratic centralist practices that prolonged them beyond the electorate's patience.

December 18, 2008

Comrades in Tower Hamlets Labour Group last night showed real local leadership last night by tabling a resolution at full Council, which won near unanimous support, to implement the London Living Wage. (The London Labour Party backed the idea, actively promoted by former Labour Mayor, Ken Livingstone, at its biennial conference in 2006.)

Labour-controlled Tower Hamlets Council recently elected leader Cllr Lutfur Rahman proposed the motion telling himself to get on with it. The resolution reads:

This Council:

• supports the establishment of the London Living Wage, set at a level calculated

by the Living Wage Unit to avoid poverty wages being paid in the capital;

• abhors the fact that around 400,000 Londoners continue to fall into a ‘working

poverty trap’ because their families are paid less than required to fund the basic

costs of living in London;

• calls on the Leader to review Tower Hamlets Council’s procurement, contract and

best value policies to ensure that, as far as possible within UK and EU law, the

London Living Wage, at the level set by the GLA’s Living Wage Unit, is the

minimum paid by Tower Hamlets Council and by its contractors and that all

temporary workers employed by the council are paid at least £7.45 an hour by

their agency;

• calls on the Leader to seek commitments from Tower Hamlets’ partners in the

Local Strategic Partnership to pay no less than the London Living Wage; and

• calls on the Leader to ensure that the Council’s commitment to the London Living

Wage is clearly displayed on Council headed paper, the Council website and

other appropriate locations

To the best on my knowledge Tower Hamlets is the first Labour-controlled Council to implement the London Living Wage not just for its own staff, but agency and temporary workers as well as commit to seek contract compliance as Best Value contracts come up for renewal. I believe that this latest development in promoting the 'living income' concept is the next step in Labour's commitment to end poverty in the UK. It could be used by Labour Groups in every local authority in the country to mobilise members and supporters.

I live in the City of London. It is a scandal that the Corporation has refused to become a London Living Wage Employer. If Tower Hamlets can afford to, the City has no excuse.